I often read here that everyone must put up with mormon visits if they have not jumped through hoops and received an exit letter from the church.

That is incorrect.

Everyone in their home has a right to determine who can visit. They can resign to demonstrate that they don't want church visitors, but that isn't a requirement.

Let's think about a Baptist or Unitarian member. What if they don't want church visits? They are not legally required to have them. That's obvious. All they need to do is tell the minister or visit scheduler.

The same with Mormons. The law doesn't oversee or enforce Mormon home teaching, visiting teaching, missionary or bishop visits. Any person in their home can stop these visits since they have a 100% right to determine who enters their property. That's the law.

Will Mormons respect trespassing laws? Sometimes they don't. It's up to a renter or homeowner to insist on their privacy. But it is their legal right and it has nothing to do with resignation which is only one way to demonstrate intent.

Remember Deenie the dreaded single adult? Her hometeachers included a mentally challenged socially inept kid and a man who repeatedly insulted Deenie's looks, shoes, and living space. Deenie stopped their visits while still attending church as a Chorister.

The Baptist or Unitarian might be in a situation where they are afraid or uncomfortable with certain members of their congregations or they might simply want no home visits. They do not have to let anyone into their homes just because they go to the same church.

Saying no is hard for many exmos, but it's a challenge anyone can conquer. Members, inactives, exmos and nonmos all have a right to limit or eliminate church visits just like they have a right not to pay tithes or not to follow the so-called word of wisdom.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2014 10:11AM by Cheryl.

It seems that morgue culture is very good at discouraging and removing healthy barriers from people. It also seems to discourage the development of these healthy behaviours in those raised as children within the culture. This is a tragedy to me, because barriers are required in all aspects of our social society.

Healthy barriers are required to effectively deal with anyone; merchants, employers, associates, friends, family members, significant others …almost anyone you have to interact with in our social world. If you remove a person’s ability to draw a line and say ‘enough’, you have placed them at a disadvantage for dealing with society in general.

I very much relate to this damaging social aspect of the church’s culture. I was raised to have no barriers, and it has been a life long challenge to overcome. My past is littered with a long list of ruined situations because I couldn’t say no to someone. People would run my life to their own advantage …and to my detriment. It has not been very fun. The ramifications could extend far beyond the inability to say 'no' to a church visitor.

Being able to say no can mean the difference between a satisfying life and being nothing more than a pawn or pigeon to anyone and everyone.

Does anyone else notice the irony of state theocracy and population claiming to demand such freedom from government intrusion to demand more gun rights for soveriengty of the home while allowing and encouraging a private corporation to take such liberties?

How about the irony of the freedom loving patriots actually wanting the leaders of the LDS theocracy to instruct them on sexual positions in the bedroom?

Or these lovers of freedom, having the controllers of the puppet state instruct families on how many children they should have?

LDS Inc exploits the fact that most people observe accepted social boundaries.

I would submit that LDS Inc creates a culture designed to ignore social boundaries in order to give it more control over people. All people, whether it is instructing missionaries to ignore "No solicitors" signs, to anything goes with anyone who may unfortunately have their name on any LDS paper.

LDS agents should not be treated with kid gloves. They are there for the purpose of exploiting people with a smile.

They must be dealt with directly, clearly, and unambiguously. Legal threats to them should be clear and used quickly.

"...controllers of the puppet state instruct[ing] [anyone] on how [to do anything]"

Yes deco, this has been a fascination to me for a lifetime.

You just have to jump through different hoops to stop it. Great solution there.

Evidently saying no by sending in a resignation letter is very difficult for some.

One letter and it all stops. If it does not stop and the letter is properly documented and written, you have evidence that you want no contact to justify the charge of harassment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2014 02:44PM by MJ.